that truely believes a person has no right to defend their life with deadly force if it is the only way you will live?
2006-08-03 13:49:07 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
since every one is in agreement why do our gun rights keep getting attacked
2006-08-03 14:16:58 · update #1
when the government is willing to deny natural law will they also deny the laws of gravity
2006-08-03 14:19:09 · update #2
Good point. I just wish more people saw the connection.
2006-08-03 14:23:52 · answer #1 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even if there is such a fool the law is very clear in the matter. One is entitled to use any force including deadly force if his'/her life is threatned and its use is the only alternatve left to save his/her life.
Mahatma Gandhi did believe in non-violence. He believed in meekly submitting to violence on the part of the government but it was on a high moral plane where he believed in changing the heart of the perpetrator. He believed that there is no man born as yet with soul so dead who never to himself hath said that this man opposing me is not even raising his hand in protest and still what I am doing is right.He was proved right. Hundreds nay thousands of men meekly submitted to the lathi charge of the soldiers at the Salt Mines raised protests even in the British Parliament over the attitude of the government of India at the time. India is perhaps the first country in history which won its freedom with a non-violent struggle. The Englishmen, despite all that they did in the past, have ample goodwill in this country.In fact they did not mind accepting the symbolic sovereigty of Britain over the Commonwelath of Nations.
2006-08-03 21:11:09 · answer #2 · answered by Prabhakar G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it is a matter of a "right". It is instinct, and it is the way it is. If deadly force is the only way I'm going to live, believe me I will use it. That is "necessary", and it supercedes "right" or "wrong". What would a bobcat think? To do the natural thing, of course.
2006-08-03 20:54:19 · answer #3 · answered by wolfgangmeyers 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are those that are unable to use deadly force, but can't deny a right to defend ones' self.
2006-08-03 20:55:37 · answer #4 · answered by longroad 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My belief is that I am the only one thats allowed to defend my life with the use of deadly force. Everyone else isnt.
2006-08-03 20:54:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF THEN YOU ARE STUPID!! SURE JUST STAND THERE LIKE AN IDIOT FULLY KNOWING YOU CAN TWIST HIS FINGERS AND SMACK HIS NOSE AND KICK HIS KNEES AND GROIN AREA!!
IF THE GUY IS BEATING YOU UP!! GO FOR THE WEAKEST PART OF HIS BODY YOU DON"T NEED TO USE DEADLY FORCE YOU CAN DEFEND YOURSELF HALF WAY!! NOT SERIOUSLY HURT HIM>>JUST ENOUGH SO YOU CAN ESCAPE AND SEND HIM TO JAIL !!
2006-08-03 20:59:54 · answer #6 · answered by +++++ SPOOK ++++ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Self preservation is a biological need, so yeah I rather kill than be killed. Gandhi on the other had did not believe in it he would have been killed had he had to face that situation. True pacifist that he was.
2006-08-03 20:55:38 · answer #7 · answered by sickcured? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WHAT GIVES THE OTHER PERSON THE RIGHT TO THREATEN MY LIFE? If someone is out to harm me, I'd sure as hell would put up a fight even if it results in that person losing their life.
2006-08-03 21:23:22 · answer #8 · answered by young one 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can we possibly know what we'd do until the situation arose?
I don't know what I would do. Pull a trigger or not? Don't know.
Hopefully I wont have to.
2006-08-04 12:38:33 · answer #9 · answered by eg_ansel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe it's the Quakers that are against violence even in defense.
2006-08-03 20:52:59 · answer #10 · answered by JULIE J 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋